Judgment M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 8.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 17333/2014 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Application preferred by the appellant herein -original petitioner and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Reference (CGITA) No. 162/2012 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the said reference, the appellant herein - original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. That in the year 1993 applications were invited by giving an advertisement for the post of technical manpower. The respective appellants - workmen applied and cleared the interview and practical test, but they were not given the appointments as per the advertisement (the aforesaid is not the subject-matter). It appears that thereafter in the year 1994 an advertisement was given inviting the applications for the post of semi-skilled workers. Again the advertisement was given in the Daily newspaper in the year 1995 inviting the applications for the post of semi-skilled worker. The respective appellants - petitioners-workmen applied for the said post and cleared the examination but they were not found suitable for the post of semi-skilled worker and therefore, they were not given appointment on the post of semi-skilled worker. However, as per the policy, respective workmen were given the appointment on the post of helper which was lower than the pay scale of semi-skilled worker. All the respective workmen worked on the post of helper for approximately five years without raising any grievance. That thereafter after a period of approximately 12 years, the respective workmen raised industrial dispute challenging their initial appointment as helper and make grievance that in the year 1994-95 when they applied for the post of semi-skilled worker and they were interviewed also for semi-skilled worker, they ought to have been appointed as semi-skilled worker. It was also the case on behalf of the workmen that as such for the period from 1994 to 2000, as such they performed their duty as semi-skilled worker and therefore, they were entitled for the difference and wages of semi-skilled worker. It was also the case on behalf of the workmen that as such for the period from 1994 to 2000, as such they performed their duty as semi-skilled worker and therefore, they were entitled for the difference and wages of semi-skilled worker. That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal held that the respective workmen were entitled for their respective appointment from the date of their initial appointment on the post of semi-skilled worker for which they applied and interviewed. The learned Tribunal also observed that after a period of 16 years and more particularly when initially they were offered next lower post of helper in writing and they all accepted that post of helper and joined and worked for five years without raising any grievance, thereafter it is not open for the concerned workmen to make a grievance that initially they ought to have been appointed on the post of semi-skilled worker. Consequently, the learned Tribunal dismissed the reference. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the reference, the appellants herein - concerned workmen preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 17333/2015 before this Court and by impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Application confirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the workmen have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. Shri J.T. Trivedi, learned Advocate appearing for Shri K.R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-workmen has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in dismissing the petition and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the reference. It is further submitted by Shri Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the concerned workmen that the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Tribunal both have materially erred in not properly appreciating that as such the applications were invited for the post of semi-skilled worker and the concerned workmen applied for the post of semi-skilled worker. It is submitted that even the concerned workmen were interviewed for the post of semi-skilled worker and therefore, they ought to have been appointed on the post of semi-skilled worker rather than the helper as appointed by the employer. It is submitted that even the concerned workmen were interviewed for the post of semi-skilled worker and therefore, they ought to have been appointed on the post of semi-skilled worker rather than the helper as appointed by the employer. It is further submitted by Shri Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the concerned workmen that the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have materially erred in dismissing the reference on the ground that the concerned workmen raised the industrial dispute belatedly. It is submitted that on the ground of delay and laches the workmen cannot be denied the relief which otherwise they are entitled to. Shri Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the concerned workmen has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his submission that technicality should not come in the way of the workmen in getting legitimate right/reliefs. "1. Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and others v. Union of India and others (2015) 3 SCC 1 . 2. Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation 2010 (124) FLR 700 (SC). 3. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers AIR 2001 SC 3527 (Paras 9 and 27) : 2001 (91) FLR 182 (SC). 4. Dilbagh Rai Jerry v. Union of India 1973 (27) FLR 428 (SC) : (1973) 10 SCLJ 282. No other submissions have been made." Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Present Letters Patent Appeal is opposed by Shri B.N. Doctor, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition and confirming the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that though the concerned workmen applied for the post of semi-skilled worker and they were interviewed for the post of semi-skilled worker, however they were not found suitable for the post of semi-skilled worker and therefore, as per the policy the concerned workmen were offered the appointment on the lower post. It is submitted that as such the concerned workmen accepted the said appointment and worked on the said post for five years without making any grievance. It is submitted that as such the concerned workmen accepted the said appointment and worked on the said post for five years without making any grievance. It is submitted that thereafter after a period of 12 years the concerned workmen raised industrial dispute which the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that as such there is no error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. It is submitted that concurrent findings of fact are given by the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Tribunal that the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief. It is submitted that none of the decisions which have been relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the concerned workmen shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties at length. We have perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the reference as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. At the outset it is required to be noted that after a period of approximately 12 years the concerned workmen raised the industrial dispute making grievance that initially when they were appointed as helper in the year 1994, they were wrongly appointed as helper. It was the case on behalf of the workmen that as the applications were invited for the post of semi-skilled worker and when they applied for the post of semi-skilled and they cleared the examination, they ought to have been appointed as semi-skilled worker. It was also the case on behalf of the workmen that in fact they performed their duties as semi-skilled worker however they were not paid the salary of semi-skilled worker and therefore also, they asked for the difference in the salary. However, it is required to be noted that after the concerned workmen were appointed on the post of helper in the year 1994, they worked for more than 5 years as helper without making any grievance. They accepted the post of helper. However, it is required to be noted that after the concerned workmen were appointed on the post of helper in the year 1994, they worked for more than 5 years as helper without making any grievance. They accepted the post of helper. It is the case on behalf of the department that at the time of interview they were not found suitable for the post of semi-skilled worker and therefore, as per the policy of the department, they were offered the appointment on the lower post i.e. helper in writing and the concerned workmen accepted the said appointment as helper and worked for more than 5 years as helper. Considering the above, it was not open for the concerned workmen subsequently to make a grievance and that too after a period of approximately 12 years that initially when they were appointed as helper in the year 1994, they ought to have been appointed as semiskilled workers. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the reference and the same is rightly confirmed by the learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order. Now, so far as the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to herein above and relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the workmen is concerned, on facts, none of the decisions shall be applicable. It is required to be noted that in the present case, the reference is not dismissed solely on the ground of delay. Delay is considered as one of the ground for dismissing the reference. However, on merits, by reasoned order and on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has dismissed the reference which in the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to be interfered by this Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.